In writing this up I prioritised the stable release. While we still alternate between stable and maintenance the change over to a new release every 6 months results in a small gap.
If you are interested I also wrote up this change in Andrea’s google doc.
In writing this up I prioritised the stable release. While we still
alternate between stable and maintenance the change over to a new release
every 6 months results in a small gap.
I believe it's reasonable, and helps developer keep focused on the new
release and
avoid a triple release in the month.
Why is the 2.6 series not following the same pattern as the 2.5 one though?
(the pause in 2.5 is after 2.5.2, in 2.6 after 2.6.3)
In writing this up I prioritised the stable release. While we still alternate between stable and maintenance the change over to a new release every 6 months results in a small gap.
I believe it’s reasonable, and helps developer keep focused on the new release and
avoid a triple release in the month.
Why is the 2.6 series not following the same pattern as the 2.5 one though?
(the pause in 2.5 is after 2.5.2, in 2.6 after 2.6.3)
In writing this up I prioritised the stable release. While we still alternate between stable and maintenance the change over to a new release every 6 months results in a small gap.
I believe it’s reasonable, and helps developer keep focused on the new release and
avoid a triple release in the month.
Why is the 2.6 series not following the same pattern as the 2.5 one though?
(the pause in 2.5 is after 2.5.2, in 2.6 after 2.6.3)
it has taken me some time to get my head around this. Certainly makes sense for embedded users. The recommendation for production servers then would be hang in on old version. By time it is discontinued, then new version will be at .3.
Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential.
If received in error please destroy and immediately notify us.
Do not copy or disclose the contents.
To me, taking into account the feedback I have gathered, it would have
looked better to add a 2.4.8 right after 2.5.3 and same goes for 2.5.8
with 2.6.3.
I assume that this does not need to be decided now and that if we feel
like doing one additional release that is ok.
As I said, this is a minor thing that would not need more discussion.
I believe that in X months with X >> 1 we might want to check if what
we have done is fine or if we need
to improve things again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
Read the Whitepaper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
Read the Whitepaper.
In writing this up I prioritised the stable release. While we still
alternate between stable and maintenance the change over to a new
release every 6 months results in a small gap.
If you are interested I also wrote up this change in Andrea's google doc.
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineer
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre
the release process is certainly open to discussion and will no doubt benefit from review in a few months.
Kind regards,
Ben.
On 10/02/14 06:10, Simone Giannecchini wrote:
As I said, this is a minor thing that would not need more discussion.
I believe that in X months with X >> 1 we might want to check if what
we have done is fine or if we need
to improve things again.
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineer
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre
I would not worry, we can always make more releases if there is a volunteer in position to do so. Your idea would result in three stable branches in play concurrently making it a bit hard for people to track.
Note there is a matching proposal on the GeoTools side that can use a +1.
To me, taking into account the feedback I have gathered, it would have
looked better to add a 2.4.8 right after 2.5.3 and same goes for 2.5.8
with 2.6.3.
I assume that this does not need to be decided now and that if we feel
like doing one additional release that is ok.
As I said, this is a minor thing that would not need more discussion.
I believe that in X months with X >> 1 we might want to check if what
we have done is fine or if we need
to improve things again.